Gorman v. Superintendent

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

August 24, 2016

ANDRE L. GORMAN, Petitioner,v.SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

RUDY
LOZANO, Judge

This
matter is before the Court on a Petition under 28 U.S.C.
Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a person in State
Custody Seeking Review of a Prison Disciplinary Sanction,
filed by Andre L. Gorman, a pro se prisoner, on
April 13, 2015 (DE #1). Here, Gorman challenges a
disciplinary determination made by a hearing officer at the
Westville Correctional Center (“Westville”) under
case number WCC 14-11-0485. For the reasons set forth below,
the court DENIES the petition (DE #1). The clerk is DIRECTED
to close this case.

Approx. 1245 p.m. Officer Collins-Dawson observed Hagerty,
Jason R. #246438 with a bloody towel on his face. After
investigation, I Sgt. Johnson found out Gorman #904846 struck
Hagerty. On the way to the door to walk Gorman out of the
holding cell, Gorman admitted he strucked [sic] Hagerty in
his mother-fuckin I guest [sic] you got what you wanted.
It's been your objective to get me moved you got what you
want.

(Id.)

In
addition, the confidential case file was submitted under
seal. (DE #14.) An incident report form was included in the
file, which provides additional details. (Id. at 4.)
It states that Officer Collins-Dawson saw Offender Hagerty
holding a bloody towel on his face and she followed him into
the bathroom where she saw a cut on his nose and a bruised
right eye. (Id.) Sgt. Johnson observed Gorman trying
to hide a blood-stained bandage that was wrapped around his
hand. (Id.)

On
November 26, 2014, Gorman was notified of the charge. (DE
#12-2.) The screening report reflects that he pled not
guilty, requested a lay advocate, requested witnesses Nurse
Cortelyou to validate his injuries, Ms. Sneed to validate his
mental illness and Officer Miller to say that Gorman had
injuries, and video evidence to show that Hagerty was the
aggressor. (Id.)

Offender
DeWayne Barner acted as Gorman's lay advocate. Nurse
Cortelyou provided a statement that confirmed Gorman had a
hematoma on his forehead and had some hair pulled out. (DE
#12-4.) Ms. Sneed stated that Gorman's diagnosed mental
condition did not justify the incident. (DE #12-5.) Officer
Miller stated that he did notice that Gorman had a bump on
his head and hair pulled out following the altercation. (DE
#12-6.) The hearing officer reviewed the video from the place
and time noted on the incident report form and observed:

an altercation between the offenders in the hallway at 1:28
p.m. on 11/23/14. The offenders then go into an area that can
not be observed on camera. Offender Hagerty comes back into
view at 1:32 pm heading down the hallway towards the area out
of camera view. Offender Gorman leaves with the officer at
1:38 pm heading towards the dayroom.

(DE #12-9.)

On
December 3, 2014, a hearing officer conducted a disciplinary
hearing and found Gorman guilty of the charge of assault. (DE
#12-10.) At the hearing, Gorman's comment was, “I
had to go to medical. *Submitted written statement. The
incident took place on D2E. I felt compelled to stand up for
that guy. I was defending myself.” (DE #12-10.)
Gorman's written statement explained that he was just
defending himself. (DE 12-#11.) Relying on staff reports,
witness statements, video review, photographs, and the
confidential incident report, the hearing officer imposed a
penalty of 120 days lost earned time credits and demoted him
from credit class 1 to credit class 2. (Id.) Gorman
appealed to the facility head and the final reviewing
authority, but his appeals were denied. (DE #12-13.)

DISCUSSION

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;When
prisoners lose earned time credits in a prison disciplinary
hearing, they are entitled to certain protections under the
Due Process Clause: (1) advance written notice of the
charges; (2) an opportunity to be heard before an impartial
decision maker; (3) an opportunity to call witnesses and
present documentary evidence in defense when consistent with
institutional safety and correctional goals; and (4) a
written statement by a fact finder of evidence relied on and
the reasons for the disciplinary action. Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563 (1974). To satisfy due
process, there ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.